nospam wrote:

> what you fail to understand is that not having a front plate in an area
> where it's required makes the vehicle more distinctive than it
> otherwise would have been.

First off, I didn't fail to understand that, but I did fail to _mention_
that I understood that. (BTW, badgolferman, this simple admission by me, an
adult, is fundamentally what the iKooks completely lack in character).

> what you also fail to understand is your practice of not having a
> google id makes you more distinctive for tracking, because it's *very*
> rare anyone does that.

Again, I didn't fail to comprehend what you're claiming, but I didn't
mention that I'm aware that most people do have a Google Account.

My home also has the SSID hidden, nospam, for privacy reasons.
You could argue the same thing with that too, right?
And, my phones and laptops don't broadcast my home SSIDs either, right?
And there's no Microsoft account on my Windows 10 PCs, either, right?

All those things are done for privacy reasons, which, I'll easily grant
you, most people wouldn't even understand, let alone perform. Right?

I agree with you that I'm different in that I set up devices for privacy.
Adults have the capacity to agree with the facts, unlike you iKooks.

>> They're even in the police bodycam video having been pulled over multiple
>> times on that trip (the guys is apparently a horrible driver.
>
> the stops in indiana were very likely pretext stops.

I certainly immediately had thought about that when I read about it, but I
didn't see _any_ evidence that they were pre-planned information gathering
stops, so you have to be guessing when you say that (or you have cites,
which I doubt you have).

We'd also have to look at the timeline as to when the university metermaids
found his car and reported back to the central authority the connection.

> two stops within ten minutes is extremely unusual, especially for
> something minor such as tailgating, one of which was by a sheriff who
> normally does not patrol the interstates.

Again, it sure is indicative of something abnormal, I would agree; but
without any corroborating evidence, I'd have to lean toward Occam's Razor
which is just either bad luck or a very bad driver or good cops as they
were both in the same state, as I recall, just as he was entering it (as I
recall).

For now, I'm not going to jump to any other conclusion but that he was
doing the things which he was pulled over for (I don't recall if he was
actually cited, but I don't think so - I think he got a warning - but I
haven't re-read the documents since they were published).
>> You'd think a guy who just committed a few murders would drive below the
>> speed limit, stop at stop signs, not cross over the white lines, etc.
>
> he may have done that driving home the night of the murders, but the
> cross-country drive was a month later across multiple states nowhere
> near the crime.

I agree with any sensible statement. He was perhaps feeling quite safe, as
the police were tight lipped about the evidence, although I believe the
Elantra make and model was published by then (as I recall).

I wonder why he bothered to change his vehicle registration to another
state, as that stuff can be back tracked rather easily I would think.

>> It would be interesting to compare how many times Alex Murdaugh lied versus
>> how many times Apple lied in the same time frame as those murders took.
>
> you've gone off the deep end. seek help.

My point in bringing up Alex Murdaugh is that he was an inveterate
predatory liar, and my point in equating Apple to inveterate predatory
lying is to make a point that nobody lies like Apple lies.

"*The batteries made us do it*"... for example.
"*Think of the ecosystem*"... for another example.

Apple simply has more money to settle the criminal and civil suits.

>>> that information is not needed to make an arrest, so there's no need to
>>> disclose it at this time (assuming it does exist).
>>
>> I will agree with any logical statement you (or anyone) makes, nospam,
>> where I am not a lawyer, but I "think" they have to give the defense _all_
>> that they have at "some point" in time. I don't know when that point in
>> time is, but certainly it must be before the trial starts I would think.
>
> it's called discovery and it's happening *now*, ahead of the
> preliminary hearing in june. his lawyers need time to review it and
> build a defense.

Thanks for that information, which I appreciate, given I'm not a lawyer
but I knew there was a process where only the prosecution (not the defense)
has to provide all the related information they have on their case.
> don't expect much to be made public, as the only requirement is
> probable cause to continue with the real trial.

One minor datapoint that I'm looking to find out is the phone he owned.

You claimed Android but you didn't back up that claim, which is typical for
you since your belief system doesn't depend on facts.

I think it's more likely, since he was rather stupid, it's an iPhone (and
yes, I realize that you think people easily bamboozled by marketing
gimmickry are smart - so we're going to have to agree to disagree here).

You can't make those ungodly profit margins off an intelligent customer.

>>> this is likely his first major crime (and fortunately, his last), which
>>> is why he made a lot of mistakes that a seasoned criminal would never
>>> have done.
>>
>> I'm going to agree with you that this appears to be his first major crime,
>> as leaving the knife sheath and using the phone were simply dumb actions.
>
> it's also possible that leaving the sheath was intentional, thinking
> that it might throw off investigators to search for the 'wrong' type of
> knife, a seemingly smart move in his warped mind.

When they reported they found a knife at the home, they mentioned the type
but I noted it was NOT the type of Marine K-Bar knife that the sheath was
designed for.
> unfortunately for him, that isn't going to be particularly effective.

They never used the DNA evidence yet in the official court documents, they
just mentioned that they have them and that it's indicative, but if that
DNA evidence holds up in court, it will be particularly effective on jurors
I suspect.

Then again, the jurors believed OJ was innocent... so you never know.
> or it could have been a mistake.

I can't imagine anyone knifing four people to death not making some
mistake, e.g., there must have been blood all over his clothing.

And, as I recall, there was a "latent" shoeprint which will almost
certainly be brought into the juror's eyes if it anywhere fits his.

>>> oddly enough, it's analogous to you, who *thinks* you're hiding from
>>> google by not having a google account, while not having any idea what
>>> *other* evidence you're leaving.
>>
>> What you show no evidence of comprehending, nospam, is that the privacy
>> between Android and iOS is *COMPLETELY DIFFERENT* in myriad ways.
>
> actually, it isn't.

No. You're wrong. But I understand that you aren't thinking deeply about it
since you only believe what you see in glossy Apple marketing brochures.

The privacy of a person is the same overall whether or not they use an
iPhone or an Android phone, but the _way_ that the two platforms go about
it is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.

For one salient example, Apple requires a mothership tracking account for
the user to download useful apps; Google doesn't per se - and Google can't.

That's different whether or not you understand that's different.
Likewise, Apple _inserts_ a unique identifier into your iOS apps, nospam.
Google doesn't. Google can't.

Again, that's DIFFERENT whether or not you understand that it's different.
>> For example, in Android I randomize my Wi-Fi MAC address per connection.
>> Can you do that with iOS by a simple toggle like you can with Android?
>
> ios does that automatically without needing to toggle anything (it's
> the default), and has done it long before android did.

I provided the URL in my other thread which shows they are DIFFERENT.
*Privacy question about randomizing the MAC address of the iPhone per each AP connection*
<https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/4UKsKgmXLi0>

You just don't understand that they're rather different approaches.
> ios also can detect trackers and hide your ip address from them.
>
> either or both can be disabled if desired on a per-network basis.

What makes you think Android can't detect trackers, nospam?

I've covered the topic of trackers on the Android newsgroup, for example:
<https://i.postimg.cc/L5gnX3GS/linktopc07.jpg> List the app's trackers

Can you get _that_ kind of detail out of the iOS tracker detection nospam?

>>> additional evidence will be presented at a future trial, assuming there
>>> is one.
>>
>> His lawyer isn't in any rush to be tried it seems, which makes sense.
>
> the wheels of justice turn slowly, however, they do turn.
>
> lawsuits take time. that's just how it is.

I agree. Look how long it took for Apple to finally settle the criminal and
civil lawsuits for their lies about (secretly) throttling iPhones, nospam.

It was interesting though, after you said numerous times Apple "wasn't
worried" about 5G years ago, how _quickly_ Apple _surrendered to Qualcomm.

Apple was so desperate for a teeny tiny modem IC that they paid Qualcomm
enough to build and equip an entire modern aircraft carrier, nospam.

Complete with not only the warship, but also avionics and munitions!

>> What I'll be looking for is which phone did he own. iPhone or Android.
>
> of course you will, because that's obviously the most important thing
> in the entire case.

This is a phone newsgroup, and my salient point is to discuss and
understand how exactly did his phone track his activities, and then, what
could he have done so that his phone did NOT track his activities.

It's not so simple when you consider the possibility of crimes of passion,
the point being that the tracking is happening all the time, which is why
it's important to put a stop to as much tracking as we can stop happening.

It's apropos for this newsgroup, where I completely understand why you're
so desperate to deflect the conversation away from phone tracking.
> the more you keep babbling, the more you outdo yourself in saying
> incredibly stupid shit.

What you fundamentally don't understand, nospam, is that I study what kind
of person _believes_ Apple's predatory lies about their so-called privacy.
> meanwhile, everyone else wants to know relevant facts, such as did they
> find dna evidence linking him to the crime, have they found the knife,
> is this really his first crime and most importantly (but not needed for
> a conviction), why the hell did a random person break into a house and
> kill four students for absolutely no reason whatsoever.

This statement is the kind of child-like conclusions you make all the time
nospam, where it's no longer shocking that not only did I tell you I read
every legal document that was released at the time of his arrest, but I
also caught _you_ in a few lies which it's not lost on me you didn't back
up.

You are like Apple in that you depend on people not being able to discern
your predatory lies, where my point is that I read everything that was
released on this case so your claim that I don't want to know relevant
facts is exactly how I know that your brain was endowed with a low IQ.

For an Apple/Android newsgroup, the relevance is how did the phone do him
in, and what could he have done to prevent that, which is a focus here.

>>
>> My bet is he's an iPhone owner.
>
> my bet is you're an idiot.

And yet, you've never found a fact stated from me to be wrong, and, in this
very thread, I already showed a few "facts" from you to be fabricated.

Anyway, this is a phone newsgroup, and my salient point is to discuss and
understand how exactly did his phone track his activities, and then, what
could he have done so that his phone did NOT track his activities.